| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't compatible actions. If you use a full-attack action you don't have a full round action to use for spell combat. If you use spell combat you don't have a full attack action left to use FOB
No. It is because the off-hand weapon is being used for the spell. If your off-hand "slot" is used up, you cannot use it for something else.
This is much like the fact (FAQ) that you can't use armor spikes with a two handed weapon and two weapon fighting.
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
So, the monk's FOB uses the off-hand (as with TWF) and the Spell Combat ALSO uses the off-hand. You can't use the off-hand twice, even if it isn't the same hand, or a hand at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Chess Pwn,
per your reasoning spell combat would not work with multiple attacks with the first-hand weapon for BAB>5 reason.
Hands up who disagrees on that, please.
--
@ Komoda, this is not comparable, as
1) the off-hand could be free for casting per the latest FAQ on FoB with a single one-handed Weapon.
2) the feat only reduces penalties for an attack action everybody can do being armed in each hand, and armor spikes are not a wepaon associated with any hand.
I'm not sure why you're saying my reasoning wouldn't work. Perhaps elaborate a bit more on it.
Mine says that it's like using TWF but the off hand is a spell, so you get all the attacks you'd normally get for your main hand when using TWF and then the off hand is the spell, and doing this is a full round action. Also that a flurry of blows is a full-attack action, and you can't take a full round action and a full-attack action in the same turn. If any of my above is incorrect please explain and show so.
No.
They are separate full round actions and cannot be combined.
|
|
@Chess Pwn. sorry I didnt mean to be rude
see this FAQ here http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9r45 :
"You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon."
'and you can't take a full round action and a full-attack action in the same turn' => yes, but clearly as per FAQ above Spell Combat makes the full-attack action a full round action and is not an *additional* full round aciton.
[edit] aahm okay, the full-attack is also a full-round action, ... which makes spell combat a bonus/not an action? [/edit]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full Attack actions have always been Full round actions. That has never changed.
Full Attacks are under Full Round actions in the chart and in the text. It has been that way for years.
All that FAQ did was allow you to use haste with full round action that act just like full attacks, but are not full attacks.
This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).
Claudian what you are missing is that each one is a full round action. If each one was something like power attack which just modifies the full attack you are already taking that would be different.
Now since spell combat is a full round action, and FoB is its own full round action by virtue of being a full attack, you can not do both at the same time.
@Chess Pwn,
per your reasoning spell combat would not work with multiple attacks with the first-hand weapon for BAB>5 reason.Hands up who disagrees on that, please.
--
@ Komoda, this is not comparable, as
1) the off-hand could be free for casting per the latest FAQ on FoB with a single one-handed Weapon.
2) the feat only reduces penalties for an attack action everybody can do being armed in each hand, and armor spikes are not a wepaon associated with any hand.
My exact point was that an "off-hand" attack is NOT a limb. It does not matter what you use for your "off-hand." If you use your "off-hand" for one thing, you cannot use it for another thing.
The relevant FAQ is:
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
The part about the weapons don't matter. What matters is understanding that the "off-hand" is part of action economy, not limbs. Using FOB, even with only 1 limb, uses up your "off-hand" attack, as does Spell Combat.
|
|
So you are all saying, regarding spell combat:
Doing multiple attacks with my primary attack plus spell combat and/or spell strike is okay, as long as those multiple attacks come only from a single source that allows full-attack actions, namely the BAB.
So all the other reasons for multiple attacks as full-attack action, namely "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason," are not valid for spell combat?
And the reasoning behind is that "off-hand" attacks is part of an action economy. And "making all of his attacks" specifically refers to haste.
I doubt that. The way I see it,
Spell combat can be used with any other full-attack actions, as long as it qualifies for the restriction on Spell Copmbat "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."
Heck, how much more specific can a rule be written "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."
Hence viable options are,
- Spell Combat with single primary attack
- Spell Combat with full-attack from BAB
- Spell Combat with full attack from FoB
- Spell Combat with full-attack for some special reason
I see that my view is a minority in this forum. Praying there will be further FAQ clarification.
|
|
@ Komoda, I read from your post that you also regard Flurry of Blows multiple attacks in combination with additional attacks for wielding a second weapon in your off-hand illegal, right?
Let me read your thoughts, the SRD 3.5 FAQ on that topic is irrelevant, because this is Pathfinder which is evolved and based on 3.5 and thus not subject to 3.5 ruling.
Full Attack and Full Attack doesn't really matter. I understand that it could, but you guys can fight that part out forever because SO many things can be added to a full attack, it is difficult to tell when you are adding something to it or introducing a new full attack or adding to the current ones.
Again, the key here is the off-hand attack:
Two weapon fighting (and FOB) uses your off hand attack (action economy).
Additional attacks with Armor Spikes use your off hand attack (action economy).
Spell Combat uses your off hand attack (action economy).
That was the PRD, not SRD.
PRD is Pathfinder Reference Document. I don't know why I wrote that. I guess I was responding to too many posts at once. It was in the CRB FAQ, not the PRD.
In the same way that you cannot TWF and spell combat, you cannot combine flurry and spell combat.
It is not a metaphor, it is a game concept.
Off-Hand is not just your non-primary hand. It is a part of the action economy of the game.
I understand there is concerns about balance. Sticking to the economy metaphor, I don't see a problem sticking to "the ecomony" by paying the proper price, which is "stacking check penalties".
I don't think its a question of balance but a question of how things work. Spell Combat gives you all of your attacks in regards to how many iterative attacks you get via BAB and does so as a full round action. Flurry of Blows is a different kind of full round action. If we're just letting those two mix then it sets up precedence for other things to work, like charging and making a Vital Strike and who knows what else, unless this is a house rule or a homebrew feat/class feature/ability that creates an exception.
Its not unbalanced in a vacuum because even when added together we have a -4 or less on a bunch of attacks on a character with less than 3/4 BAB, with barely any inane bonuses to attack, less than full caster level for the purposes of casting defensively and isn't wearing armor.
So you are all saying, regarding spell combat:
Doing multiple attacks with my primary attack plus spell combat and/or spell strike is okay, as long as those multiple attacks come only from a single source that allows full-attack actions, namely the BAB.
So all the other reasons for multiple attacks as full-attack action, namely "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason," are not valid for spell combat?
And the reasoning behind is that "off-hand" attacks is part of an action economy. And "making all of his attacks" specifically refers to haste.
I doubt that. The way I see it,
Spell combat can be used with any other full-attack actions, as long as it qualifies for the restriction on Spell Copmbat "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."Heck, how much more specific can a rule be written "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."
Hence viable options are,
- Spell Combat with single primary attack
- Spell Combat with full-attack from BAB
- Spell Combat with full attack from FoB
- Spell Combat with full-attack for some special reasonI see that my view is a minority in this forum. Praying there will be further FAQ clarification.
I can't speak for everyone one else. I am saying it does not work because each one is its own full round action, and is no different than trying to cast summon monster(full round action), and full attack at the same time.
(...) unless this is a house rule or a homebrew feat/class feature/ability that creates an exception.That's my point, it is class features that allow additional attacks and spells (plus attacks in case of Spell Strike).
Then make it a feat or something and bring it to the homebrew/suggestion forum. Otherwise its... Wait did this just move to the suggestion/houserule forum? On this tab it is but on another tab its in the Rules Question forum...
he's saying it'd be a homebrew class feature
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.FoB is a full attack action that can be made with a single melee weapon in one hand. Spell combat lets you make a number of attacks equal to how many you can make with a full attack.Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.
from spell combats text:
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action"it says its a full attack action to use it
no they are both full-attack actions, you only get 1 full-attack action
its similar to if you were a wizard with a spell of casting time 1 standard action
and were also a bard who can active a bardic performance as a standard action
you cant do both because they are both standard actions
in the same way spell combat is a full-round action and flurry of blows is a full-attack action
also full attack actions are a type of full round actions, so to expand for clarity: both are full-round actions and you can only make one full round action a turn
I feel like the logic of allowing it would be terribly flawed.
Let's put this in dynasty warriors terms
Ok so two weapon fighting is a technique, a combo attack type, we'll call it X,y
Improved TWF would be X,X,y, and greater would be X,X,X,Y
Now we have FoB which has the same amount of punches as two weapon fighting.
finally we have spell combat, which is the same amount of attacks, catch my drift?
It's the same amount of effort to use each action, and they're all similar, trying to do more doesn't seem thematic, just power-gamey
*Actually on the RAW side it might be legal, but it's definitely not RAI
but you'd have to use a monk weapon
It does not matter whether you feel it is a full attack action or an add on to a full attack action.
It is a simple fact that flurry of blows uses up your off hand attack. Spell Combat requires an off hand attack. You cannot use up your off hand attack twice in one round.
No, using flurry of blows with one limb/weapon DOES NOT leave open your off hand attack. It uses it up. Not only does it use it up, but it does so with two distinct bonuses. The first is that it can be done with one weapon. The second is that it receives full Strength bonus and not one half strength bonus like most off-hand attacks. It does not change the fact that it still uses up your off-hand attacks.
There is no special rule that allows the monk to do a flurry of blows and still have another off-hand attack available for other actions.
And thus we enter the dreaded realm of real hands vs. metaphorical hands.
I was wondering when someone was going to say that. I figured it would be BBT. He loves those "hands" debates.
And thus we enter the dreaded realm of real hands vs. metaphorical hands.
If I have two vestigial arms with flurry of blows, does it automatically become multi weapon fighting?
Does the feat grant the attack?
Can I make all of those attacks with one hand during FOB?
Sorry just trolling you a bit :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am kind of guessing what you guys would say, but can a monk/magus combine Flurry of Blows with Spell Combat. I am thinking two attacks with the same weapon from the flurry and a spell from the spell combat. Doable or not?
Spell Combat says: "As a full-round action...".
That means you spend your full round action and get spell combat. Period.
Flurry of Blows also starts out with:
"As a full-round action...".
That means you expend your full round action and get the effect stated in Flurry of Blows.
Had they stated: "When making a full-attack action..." instead, then spell combat and/or flurry would have been an effect that you could add onto a full attack. But they did not.
Precedent in that wording style can be found in Manyshot and Rapid Shot for example: "When making a full-attack action..." which indicates it is an effect to be added onto the attack stucture.
This is something I refer to in my home game as a "non action decision". It is a choice you make in combat that modifies a spell or attack from a feat or class ability but it takes no actual action cost of any kind. Your character just decides and the effect happens. Power Attack is another, similar example.
Since the wording on Spell Combat and Flurry is explicit that both are full round actions, combing them is not possible.
And thus we enter the dreaded realm of real hands vs. metaphorical hands.If I have two vestigial arms with flurry of blows, does it automatically become multi weapon fighting?
Does the feat grant the attack?
Can I make all of those attacks with one hand during FOB?
Sorry just trolling you a bit :p
No
What Feat?
Yes
What it really falls down to is if you think an option for making different types of full attacks should be open for "normal number of attacks" with a weapon from spell combat.
Technically you can "normally" make all those attacks normally with a full attack, and do so with a single weapon, but that doesn't change the fact it's as if using two weapon fighting. If you use two weapon fighting your "off hand" is used up. In my opinion what really hems you up is the fact that a FOB even with one weapon still uses up your nebulous "hand" as per two weapon fighting and as such does not leave that "hand" open for spell combat.
Regardless of how many hands you are actually using two weapon fighting still uses your 'off hand' and that means you don't have a free hand, for the 'as if two weapon fighting'.
Basically it's two effects acting as if the same one.
Do you know what else is a full attack action? Making more than one attack per round with iterative attacks.
You can clearly Spell Combat with iterative attacks. So you can clearly make a Full Attack Action and Spell Combat in the same round.
That said, Flurry uses the off-hand attack. Spell Combat uses the off-hand attack.
You can not use the off-hand attack for two different things in the same round.
Spell combat doesn't work with the full attack action it's a full round action that uses iterative attacks. I can't even for sure say that its a full attack at all. Its just a full round action that lets you make all your attacks with your melee weapon and cast one spell that has the casting time of one standard action, all attack rolls being at a -2 penalty.
Now technically starting a full attack is not exactly a full round action. You start it as a standard action and it kind of turns into a full round action if you make an attack after the first one or make a move action. You can declare a full attack, attack once, decide that you want to move instead and if you did not make a five foot step you can 'fall out' of your full round action that you started.
Flurry of Blows
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
Haste
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
FAQ
Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?
You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).
Haste specifies using a Full-Attack. Flurry of Blows specifies using a Full Attack. Haste is allowed to work with Spell Combat. I would allow Flurry of Blows to work as well.
Of course, at a culmanative -4 penalty. Considering the Magus lacks ways to increase his to-hit bonus and would require multiclassing (which puts off his class features). Then again, there is the whole "metaphorical hands" issue...